Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Shrev94412 on October 08, 2010, 02:55:33 pm

Title: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Shrev94412 on October 08, 2010, 02:55:33 pm
Let me first apologize....I am new to the forum and I am sure some of this has been covered as I have read a couple of existing posts.

I am a Nikon D3X user and I am looking to move up to Medium format. I have been looking for some time now to make this move. I shoot Fashion, Glamour, Landscape and moving into Bridal shooting. I do both studio shooting and on location and a lot of handheld shooting. The past week I have spent time with both the Dallas Texas Hasselblad Rep and The Phase One rep. Let me say they both are wonderful to work with and very straight forward.

During my reviews I shot both cameras. Not at same time as an optimum comparison would be but, similar settings. I understand that this is not the best way to compare. After doing this, I am VERY confused as what to do for various reasons.

The two Systems I am looking at are as follows:
Hasselblad H4D-40, Hasselblad 28mm and Hasselblad 50-110 Lens
Phase One 645DF, P40 or P45 Back with Schneider 28mm Lens and Mamayia 55-110 Lens

1) It seems to me that the image quality from the Phase One 645DF with a P40 or P45 back and an LS 80mm Schneider Lens is a better quality image.

2) The Hasselblad has way better ergonomics to me.

3) The Hasselblad as tested was set to +1.7 EV (I read on this site that this is typical with Hasselblad)

4) The focus was inconsistent on the Hasselblad but not the Phase One.

5) The Phase One 645DF body seems very plastic.

6) I like Capture One. I even pulled in some of my Nikon .NEF Raw files and It seemed to me that the Capture One software processed the Nikon RAW file with much better image quality than Photoshop ACR. I also like the Phocus Software from Hasselblad. (Makes me want to go reprocess a bunch of Nikon Images in Capture One…Geeez!!)

7) Phase One Does not have an LS 50-110 Lens, They do have the old 55-110 Mamayia

So, it seems to me that overall phase one is better except for ergonomics and quality. What do I not like about Phase One? It seems to me that its resale value is terrible. Even their trade in program is 50% except for the back which is 90% on the first eighteen months. I have enjoyed that I have lost very little money as I have traded up my Nikon Gear over the years. I have even made a little money on some Nikon lenses I sold after their large price increase last year.

What I have not tried is the Phase One back P40 or P45 on an H2F Body with Hasselblad Lenses. This would solve the Ergonomics issue and seemingly cheap body of the DF and bring price down substantially but my concern with that solution is ….Are the Schneider Lenses better that the Hasselblad Lenses??? Are the lenses contributing greatly to the image quality when shooting the Phase One solution or is the Phase One back the Major contributor to Image Quality? Are the Lenses of Hasselblad and Schneider comparable or is one substantially better.

I want sharp crisp Images with beautiful resolution and color. I need Flash Sync speed above a shutter speed of 250 (Nikon limitation) with strobes. I want those absolutely beautiful table book quality Landscape images with high Depth of field and beautiful resolution.

I like both Systems but each have pros and cons. Any Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: BrendanStewart on October 08, 2010, 03:08:35 pm
Woops, just saw you are in Texas.

I have to say from my perspective, the Hassy made more sense. The closed system really appealed to us and Phocus has worked really well.  As wedding shooters we cannot fuss, we just need it to work, and Hasselblad has provided that for us.  The lens range also has real appeal. And all Hassy lenses are Leaf shutter.

I'm not saying the Mamiya system isn't good. You've listed some great reasons to like them. I'm just giving my experience. Also, we can modify NEF and CR2's in Phocus as well.

I've got some stuff here with Strobes: http://www.flickr.com/photos/symbolphotography/sets/72157624913368149/

That's with the H3DII-31. I have to say, it's a dream to use. Both systems lack 900k screens like the Nikons, but we shoot tethered a lot now with it and like the results better on the laptop screen.

If you have any questions on the Hasselblad system, feel free to PM me.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 08, 2010, 03:12:38 pm
Hi...

You have not mentioned phocus,,, and this I think is one of the major advantages of a Hasselblad back.

For most studio work you would mostly be able to keep within the latitude without the excellent fill and recover features, but I thing they are invaluable for landscape and bridal.

The clarity tool is also magic.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Chris_Brown on October 08, 2010, 03:31:07 pm
I'd take a very close look at the supporting software and file management schema. Capture One was borne out of support for their camera backs. When Hasselblad merged/bought Imacon, they used their scanning software for their backs. Is Phocus a variant of Imacon's Flexcolor or is a complete rewrite?

Excellent results can be attained from both systems, but you will be married to the software.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: aaron on October 08, 2010, 03:40:59 pm
You mentioned that you haven't tried the Phase P40 - P45 on the H2F body......

If I remember correctly the Hassy 28 mm lens will not work on the H2F body  :-[ so that may narrow your options.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Dustbak on October 08, 2010, 04:29:33 pm
A P40-P45 will not work on a H2F. A HCD28 will work on a H2F if it has a CF back attached.

I use Hasselblad. Their lenses are excellent but not at the same level as Schneider Digitars or Rodenstock HR. The difference is not large but it was visible to me. I don't know about the Schneider lenses for the P1 but I am sure they are excellent.

I now changed completely to the H, I preferred the ease of use of the H system over my Rollei X-Act. Having said that I am pretty sure I could have made the the P1/DF system work for me too.

It is beginning to get something like Nikon vs Canon. I also use Nikon...
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: gazwas on October 08, 2010, 05:03:18 pm
My experience of testing the H4D-50 and the P40 was that straight out of the camera the Phase is a lot sharper. The Phase look is sharp, punchy, with plenty of contrast and I'm sure they must add some corrections to the files at capture. Hasselblad are the opposite. Its as if their RAW files are just as the camera chip captures and they leave the rest up to the photographer in Phocus.  My testing found you could easily sharpen and add contrast to the Blad files to the levels of the Phase backs and it seemed you could sharpen the Blad files more before signs of over sharpening.

I thought the Blad files looked a bit more film like where as the Phase backs were a smoother more digital look so very much down to a question of taste.

IMO the major draw of the Phase system is the Schneider glass and the abitity to use their new tilt/shift lenses.  A great shame Hasselblad don't allow this.     
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: John.Williams on October 08, 2010, 05:13:03 pm
You can run the Phocus software and check it out yourself for free.

1. Download sample images here (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/downloads/images.aspx)

2. Download Phocus here (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/service--support/technical-support/software-downloads.aspx)

If you are not registered, it will take a minute to register, then you are set to go.

We have found that if you know CaptureOne, it takes about 15 minutes to know Phocus. Tools are in different places, recipes are known as adjustments...

At least the readers of this forum would be able to move from speculative to knowing :)

The TruFocus on the H4D-40 is a real and valuable photographic tool (keeps the intended focus when the camera is repositioned after focusing) and you must experience this if possible - I have heard all the usual complaints and groans from those who have not even tried it, balanced by others who were impressed how it solves a real problem. Even some of the toughest Hasselblad critics, too.

If you are intellectually honest with your assessment, you will find that the Hasselblad H4D-40 stacks way up to the Phase One P40/45; that is difficult to do unless you get hands-on with both systems. Not just research nor the advice of salespeople. Or grumpy people :)

As far as tilt/shift, the HTS 1.5 works with the 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 210mm, and 300mm - 8 lenses.

John

If you are in Miami next week - come get your hands on this gear at Aperture Studios Thursday, Oct 14th (Digital Techs - training the evening before at OneSource 6-9PM)


Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: stevenf on October 08, 2010, 06:23:34 pm
I don't believe HTS works with any lens greater than 100mm.

Steven
http://www.friedmanphoto.com (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: KevinA on October 08, 2010, 08:48:55 pm
Which system will earn you the most, Phaseone, Hasselblad or the Nikon? go with the one that keeps your bank account the healthiest.

Kevin.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: ndevlin on October 08, 2010, 08:54:46 pm

If money is not an object, go with the system that has the best local support and feels best in your hand.  Which camera makes you want to shoot? That's the one to own. Both systems can produce fantastic images, but both have their real irritations. Which of C1 or Phocus do you prefer? You will be spending more time with one of those pieces of software than you will with your spouse, so you better be in love  ;)

Good luck and lets us know how it turns out.

- N.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on October 09, 2010, 12:56:11 am
You can run the Phocus software and check it out yourself for free.

1. Download sample images here (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/downloads/images.aspx)

2. Download Phocus here (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/service--support/technical-support/software-downloads.aspx)

If you are not registered, it will take a minute to register, then you are set to go.

We have found that if you know CaptureOne, it takes about 15 minutes to know Phocus. Tools are in different places, recipes are known as adjustments...

At least the readers of this forum would be able to move from speculative to knowing :)

The TruFocus on the H4D-40 is a real and valuable photographic tool (keeps the intended focus when the camera is repositioned after focusing) and you must experience this if possible - I have heard all the usual complaints and groans from those who have not even tried it, balanced by others who were impressed how it solves a real problem. Even some of the toughest Hasselblad critics, too.

If you are intellectually honest with your assessment, you will find that the Hasselblad H4D-40 stacks way up to the Phase One P40/45; that is difficult to do unless you get hands-on with both systems. Not just research nor the advice of salespeople. Or grumpy people :)

As far as tilt/shift, the HTS 1.5 works with the 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, 150mm, 210mm, and 300mm - 8 lenses.

John

If you are in Miami next week - come get your hands on this gear at Aperture Studios Thursday, Oct 14th (Digital Techs - training the evening before at OneSource 6-9PM)





Is that like saying if you know Adobe Photoshop, it will take you about 15 minutes to know Adobe Elements?  ;D


Steve Hendrix
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: mtomalty on October 09, 2010, 01:33:46 am
[quote ]
IMO the major draw of the Phase system is the Schneider glass and the abitity to use their new tilt/shift lenses.  A great shame Hasselblad don't allow this.     
[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken only one of the three recently announced Schneider lenses works
with Phase backs. The other two only cover 35mm DSLR's

Mark
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 09, 2010, 02:20:39 am
I use Hasselblad. Their lenses are excellent but not at the same level as Schneider Digitars or Rodenstock HR.
You can use Schneider Apo-Digitars on the Hasselblad with a view camera.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Dustbak on October 09, 2010, 02:32:47 am
Dick,

Do you ever read someone's post entirely?

Quote
I now changed completely to the H, I preferred the ease of use of the H system over my Rollei X-Act. Having said that I am pretty sure I could have made the the P1/DF system work for me too.

I used Schneider Digitars & Rodenstock HR with a view camera and CF(MS) back which is why I know these lenses are better than the H lenses. I preferred ease of use over a marginal improvement in lenses hence the X-act had to go.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: shaun on October 09, 2010, 02:55:12 am
Hi

3) The Hasselblad as tested was set to +1.7 EV (I read on this site that this is typical with Hasselblad)

Wasn't aware that was the case. Seems a bit much to me, I would have thought a half stop. Had a search and can't see any reference to this.

Shaun
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 09, 2010, 03:45:29 am
Dick,

Do you ever read someone's post entirely?

I used Schneider Digitars & Rodenstock HR with a view camera and CF(MS) back which is why I know these lenses are better than the H lenses. I preferred ease of use over a marginal improvement in lenses hence the X-act had to go.
In you previous post, you did not state that you use, or had ever used, Apo-Digitars with a Hasselblad back.

English is my mother tongue, and I have been a Technical Author, and I do sometimes read every work in posts.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: stewarthemley on October 09, 2010, 06:05:12 am

3) The Hasselblad as tested was set to +1.7 EV (I read on this site that this is typical with Hasselblad)

Oh dear, is this going to be yet another of those internet "facts" that is anything but. I find it interesting, putting it politely, that only one person has commented on the above. Expecting any cam/back comb to perform well almost two stops overexposed is not being sensible. Who decided this was a good setting? If it was the rep, then maybe he should just go work directly with Phase... he's certainly not doing Hasselblad any favours. And if it was yourself (understandable mistake if you don't know the system) I would still blame the rep for not setting it up correctly. It's possible one or two shots might need that sort of compensation but expecting them all to is stretching incredulity just a tad too far. If it was the camera, then it needs checking. I remember when I compared Phase with Hass I made a similar mistake but in H's favour. Tried them again when I knew how to set both up and found the file quality, when correctly processed, to be equal. For me then it became ergonomics, etc.

Regarding C1 vs Phocus. Someone above nailed it: C1 goes for impact in its default settings. Phocus assumes you know what sort of look you want and so starts with a fairly neutral look. And this would impact on apparent sharpness of any lens comparison, if left at default settings. Yes, I know you can set both up how you want but many times I have seen newbies "led astray" by C1's defaults.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: jduncan on October 09, 2010, 08:19:59 am

4) The focus was inconsistent on the Hasselblad but not the Phase One.

Can you elaborate a little bit more?
I am confused, there are so many people that says that the AF on the hasselblad is very good (for MF), but I have noticed some months ago a  grow of the number of comments like yours. I am not saying you are not right. I just like to understand your findings a little better .
Thanks
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: JonathanBenoit on October 09, 2010, 08:21:32 am
Dick,

Do you ever read someone's post entirely?

I used Schneider Digitars & Rodenstock HR with a view camera and CF(MS) back which is why I know these lenses are better than the H lenses. I preferred ease of use over a marginal improvement in lenses hence the X-act had to go.


This statement does not help the OP. He is looking at slr and digital back combinations. At no point has he mentioned that he will also be buying a tech/view camera and if he did, the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses will work with any digital back. Although, your statement that they are better than Hasselblad lenses is correct, it is also correct that they are better than any lenses for Phase One / Mamiya as well. So it's moot point.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: jsjphoto88 on October 09, 2010, 09:53:25 pm
I was recently in the same situation and wound up purchasing the Hasselblad H4D-40 over the Phase One P40+ and have loved my decision.

I tested the two systems back to back for a day in my studio and found that although the quality was great with both systems, the H4D had some huge advantages (at least for my style of shooting).  As a fashion and beauty photographer, True Focus and APL are an absolute blessing (although really only noticeable with wide angle lenses at close distance).  I enjoyed the bigger, more responsive display screen on the H4D back (I found it much easier and faster to review images and check for sharpness than with Phase One backs), and found that I could shoot up to ISO 800 on the H4D with clean images without any need for noise reduction (PhaseOne needed to change to Sensor+ which had much more noticeable noise and a quarter of the resolution).  Phocus was easy to learn and there is apparently a new 2.6 update coming soon which allows real-time remote iPad/iPhone viewing (great for studio shoots to prevent art directors and clients from crowding around the monitor).

Another big factor in my decision was the lens choices.  I previously owned a Mamiya 645AFDII and 55-110 zoom, and had some major issues with this lens and was not about to repurchase this for a PhaseOne system.  Hasselblad on the other hand had the HC50-110 and the HCD35-90 and ALL of their lenses are leaf shutter which sync  up to 1/800 sec so this was another no brainier for me.  FYI: I was also considering the HC50-110 but ultimately purchased the HCD35-90 as it's faster, much more lightweight and with the slight crop of the H4D-40 has the same range as a 35mm 35-90 lens (unfortunately it's also twice the price of the 50-110!).
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Shrev94412 on October 11, 2010, 01:06:32 am
I want to thank everyone for their input as to the question I originally asked for help. This has been quiet an experience to say the least.

I feel first I need to respond to a few statements I made which some individuals have asked for more information or clarification. The first was image focus and my statement regarding inconsistency of focus on the Hasselblad. It just seemed as we tested the H4D that some images were in focus and some were in focus but not exactly where we/I were placing the focus in the viewfinder. Now, I am not gonna deny that this could have been partly due to bad technique as I was not use to the camera, obviously. But, it was clear, it was an issue. Not major, but clearly not right on every shot. I do not have that problem with my Nikon D3X.....It is, most of the time, right on the money. Again, could have been poor technique and it would not stop me from buying Hasselblad.

Second, I made a comment regarding a +1.7 EV setting on the Hasselblad. I just looked down and noticed the camera was set at this setting. It was interesting because the day before I read the article listed below which commented as to the same. Read the following Article, Paragraph Titled "Image Quality-Methodology"

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml)

I have no further comment except that I think I would need to spend more time with the Hasselblad H4D to confirm if that setting is really necessary.

Now lets get to what really is impacting my decision. Software! I downloaded both Capture One and Phocus and Hasselblad Raw images from the hasselblad site as referenced in an earlier post.

I am an advanced Photoshop user as I have been using it for years and have been to Adobe training all the way thru advanced courses. I am also a Lightroom user.

Let me say that I am VERY impressed with Capture One. I actually pulled up many of my Nikon D3X files and reprocessed them and was amazed. I also pulled up many of my Canon 5D Mark II files and it did an excellent job with those file as well. The software worked flawlessly with my DSLR files and in my testing with the Phase One Rep with the test images we took with the P40 and P45 backs. Yes, Capture one does apply some adjustment as default but I feel like it when it does this it creates a good starting point and I am okay with that. The software is VERY intuitive.

Phocus is another story. Personally I do not feel like it is "up to par" with Capture One. Phocus struggled with my Nikon D3X files and my Canon 5D Mark II files. Many times in Phocus I would click on a Nikon or Canon raw image thumbnail and the image preview would go black. I restarted the software and even rebooted and got the same result. Maybe I didn't set something up correctly??? Anyway, when I downloaded the Hasselblad sample Raw files, Phocus worked flawlessly. It does start with no adjustments so the images look a little bland till you step up some adjustments. I can see where in the end you would achieve a similar end result with both software platforms. By the way, I was running both on a Mac Workstation with Snow Leopard.

So at this point I am still indecisive as to which system to purchase. Hasselblad has both the lenses I need. Phase one only has One, the 28mm. Phase One does not have a new 50-110 zoom so, I would have to spend more money on several primes. I like Capture One much better than Phocus. I like the ergonomics of the Hasselblad better but, I think the V-Grip added the the Phase One 645DF body may solve that issue. I think Service and support will be similar. The Phase One System is more expensive. I think resale may be better for Hasselblad and it seems to be better built, my opinion. I am exhausted....LOL.

Again, Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I can see why so many people rely on this forum.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: jsjphoto88 on October 11, 2010, 03:23:56 am
The first was image focus and my statement regarding inconsistency of focus on the Hasselblad. It just seemed as we tested the H4D that some images were in focus and some were in focus but not exactly where we/I were placing the focus in the viewfinder. Now, I am not gonna deny that this could have been partly due to bad technique as I was not use to the camera, obviously. But, it was clear, it was an issue. Not major, but clearly not right on every shot. I do not have that problem with my Nikon D3X.....

I had the same issue when I switched from a Canon to Mamiya 645AFDII years ago.  Medium-format is notoriously more sensitive than 35mm format and if shooting in natural light wide open you normally need to shoot at a much faster shutter speed than the standard 1/focal length formula.  (i.e. if shooting with a medium-format 80mm lens hand held will most likely need to shoot at 1/125 sec to get sharp images).  Also, shooting at f/2.8 on medium format is like shooting at f/1.2 or shallower on 35mm format - very easy to be off with your focal point.  Have you tried the PhaseOne DF camera compared to the H4D? 
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Nick-T on October 11, 2010, 04:08:13 pm
Hi Shrev
Couple of quick points from a Hasselblad user. The H system AF is very good but you do need careful technique to make the most of it. There is absolutely no inherent focus problem inherent to Hasselblad (unless there was something seriously wrong with the camera you tested). I run a forum with over 1000 users so I think I can state the above with confidence.

The Luminous "review" comparing the Hasselblad 50MP multi-shot to the Phase P65 is I'm sorry to say, a very poor piece of journalism written by someone with good credentials but very poor knowledge of the Hasselblad system. IMO that review should not be on this site (which is known as an excellent source of information). The +1.7 EV thing is nonsense and as others have pointed out would seriously compromise your side-by-side tests.

In terms of ISO performance the H4D40 is in a class of it's own, and will out-perform the Phase cameras at full resolution, if ISO is important to you then I would test.

Finally Capture One is an excellent piece of software and does a superb job with 3rd party files. Phocus is much younger but is coming along in leaps and bounds, I do believe with the right hardware (Phocus likes a powerful graphics card) it's a worthy competitor to Capture One. Get a real expert to show you both pieces of software.

Nick-T
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 12, 2010, 03:23:21 pm
The H system AF is very good but you do need careful technique to make the most of it. There is absolutely no inherent focus problem inherent to Hasselblad
Nick-T
... but at the Hasselbuddy event today we noticed that the H4D would not true-focus well with a lens hood on a big lens, as the focus assist light cannot see the whole subject!
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 12, 2010, 04:27:39 pm
... but at the Hasselbuddy event today we noticed that the H4D would not true-focus well with a lens hood on a big lens, as the focus assist light cannot see the whole subject!

Why should it need the assist light to focus?

Edmund
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Nick-T on October 12, 2010, 04:59:53 pm
I'm guessing it was dark...
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 13, 2010, 02:56:59 am
Why should it need the assist light to focus?

Edmund
The modeling lights were not very bright... if they had been bright enough they would have grilled the model.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 13, 2010, 03:48:48 am
The modeling lights were not very bright... if they had been bright enough they would have grilled the model.

I've done entire furniture shoots just with modeling lights - what you see is what you shoot :)

Edmund
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Dick Roadnight on October 13, 2010, 04:57:00 am
I've done entire furniture shoots just with modeling lights - what you see is what you shoot :)

Edmund
With digi WB and a tripod... as long as the furniture stands still, it would not be a problem.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: stewarthemley on October 13, 2010, 05:20:11 am
... but at the Hasselbuddy event today we noticed that the H4D would not true-focus well with a lens hood on a big lens, as the focus assist light cannot see the whole subject!

Which lens, precisely, Dick? I was there also, same day, same time, same modelling lights, using a 28, 50, 35-90, 120 macro, 150 and 210 on both an HD4 40 and 50 (yes, there was plenty of time/cameras/lenses!) and had zero trouble focussing. All had hoods on. The longest delay I had was about half a second focusing on a model with a black dress and very dark hair under a single modelling light. I doubt whether my 5D2 would have done much better. I found True Focus to be brilliant - a genuine innovation and far better than multi focussing points. You pick your spot, push a button, let go, recompose and shoot.

These points are highly relevant for the OP. You should not listen too much to other people. A little but not too much. Try the things for yourself under CORRECT conditions (none of this ludicrous 1.7+ stuff) and see what YOU think. Once you know the systems well you will be able to see what suits you. And I think you might then find some of the comments that pass as knowledge/facts on this forum (and others) to be anything but.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: James R Russell on October 13, 2010, 05:29:26 am
if they had been bright enough they would have grilled the model.

Shot with modeling lights,  Aptus 22, Contax, 35mm Superrotator on a 100F day.

Nobody melted.

(http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/rr_fashion_0090.jpg)
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: stewarthemley on October 13, 2010, 05:58:54 am
Just to add to the focus ability of Hasselblad in low light, these yesterday from the test day where Dick couldn't get his camera to focus. HD4-40, 35-90, 1600 iso, 1/40 at F5, +1EV, lack of sharpness - courtesy of me handholding. Obviously not any merit in the shots, just a quickly grabbed test by me to see what happens in that sort of light. Used True Focus on the glass (almost on the glass - couldn't see it, it was so dark) and the other shot on the Hass camera. Note that +1EV was used. Pretty dark. Fast previews direct from Phocus, nothing else done.

Edit: session timed out, second shot hopefully added
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 13, 2010, 08:58:08 am
Well, that's what I'd call a bird with a nicely feathered tail :)

Edmund

Shot with modeling lights,  Aptus 22, Contax, 35mm Superrotator on a 100F day.

Nobody melted.

(http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/rr_fashion_0090.jpg)
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 13, 2010, 08:59:04 am
Well, that's what I'd call a graceful bird with a nicely feathered tail :)

Edmund

Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: jduncan on October 13, 2010, 10:18:23 am
Shot with modeling lights,  Aptus 22, Contax, 35mm Superrotator on a 100F day.

Nobody melted.

(http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/rr_fashion_0090.jpg)
That's a shoot James. :) great work as always.  By the way I am glad she didn't melt. LOL
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on October 13, 2010, 10:56:37 am
Just want to jump in on the P40+ Vs the P45+. I will leave the Hassy out of this since I have yet to try it except I know the HD 4/40 is a great system and I am STILL waiting for Hassy to send me one to test. On the Phase stuff I would certainly lean more towards the P40+ which i currently shoot over the P45+ which i know really well from use and testing. The big advantage on the P45+ is the hour long exposure and the crop is 1:1 over the P40 1:3 crop after that I like the P40+ better. First it has the 6 micron Dalsa over the 6.8 Kodak which on the moire side of the house the P40+ will better at it also in regards to noise levels the P45+ after Iso 200 it gets much noisier over the full res. P40+ files which are really good at ISO 400 full res. and at ISO 800 are good as well not great but good. Also the P40+ has Sensor Plus which bins the files down to 10 mpx but greatly increases the noise levels to ISO 1600 easy . I have plenty of sample of that to show how good it really is plus it really acts to me at least like a 15 mpx cam. The 10 mpx in my book are underrated. Another thread another story but here sensor plus stuff http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13379

Also the Kodak VS the Dalsa debate. Interestingly i was a big Kodak fan, Leica DMR,Leica M8, P25+, P30+. Than I moved over to the P40+ and have to say I like it much better as i find it much more neutral in color and tone over the Kodaks. Maybe a way to say that is Kodak has more punch in color and saturation which is not a bad thing but they do have different qualities in look. Many will say they always loved the Leaf look in backs because it has nicer skin tones and Leaf always used Dalsa. Finding that now on the P40+ but when it first came out I did not like it at all and actually tested it three times over a year I believe until Phase C1 really nailed the color than i jumped on it testing it against the Leica S2 which BTW is a Kodak sensor. Not that one sensor is better over the other but they are just different in look and obviously what each OEM makes there profile for it as well.

Now raw processing make no mistake i am really biased towards C1 and have been using it since the 1ds but for time it was a clunky program and recently after getting the P25+ I started using it again and it has vastly improved in it's current state. Phocus I do not know the program well enough to make a realistic users comment so i won't but I hear it is good.

If it was my choice today to decide on what type of sensor than it would be for sure the 6 micron as Phase, Leaf, Hassy, Leica sensors are really nice and the latest technology with good higher ISO results from each one at full resolution and lets just call it they all are great at ISO 400 after that some maybe better but the P45+ is ISO 200 level.

I would at least demo both systems find what is the best for your use between the Hassy, Phase and Leaf also backs than see what works for your style of shooting. Also very important use the raw processing with each system and see what is better and fits your workflow. Interestingly I get asked these what to buy decision all the time and some folks I have recommended Hassy and some Phase depending on there needs and wants in a system. Just don't rush it, there is a lot of money on the line and I have received e-mails from folks that made a bad decision on a system because they did not do there homework. Good luck

End of day these systems will all produce top notch quality. Just need to find what fits you
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: bradleygibson on October 13, 2010, 11:57:25 am
Gorgeous lighting, James!

Thanks for sharing, as always.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: ondebanks on October 14, 2010, 05:22:47 am
Guy raises some interesting points re. the sensors.

Bottom line is: with PhaseOne's current lineup, you can have decent high ISO (Dalsa's 6 micron + pixel binning: Sensor+) or decent long exposures (Kodak's 6.8 micron low darknoise: eXpose+) - but not both together. The P30+ comes closest to offering both together.

With Hasselblad's and indeed Pentax's current lineup, you do have both together - in Kodak's 6 micron, 40MP microlensed, even lower darknoise chip.

Why PhaseOne missed the boat on the Kodak 6 micron chips (40MP & 50MP) is a bit of a mystery. They are now behind the technology curve. I was hoping for a Photokina announcement which would change this, but all we got was Leaf's 80MP back which is going in the other direction entirely - no high ISO, no long exposure.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on October 14, 2010, 10:19:05 am
Guy raises some interesting points re. the sensors.

Bottom line is: with PhaseOne's current lineup, you can have decent high ISO (Dalsa's 6 micron + pixel binning: Sensor+) or decent long exposures (Kodak's 6.8 micron low darknoise: eXpose+) - but not both together. The P30+ comes closest to offering both together.

With Hasselblad's and indeed Pentax's current lineup, you do have both together - in Kodak's 6 micron, 40MP microlensed, even lower darknoise chip.

Why PhaseOne missed the boat on the Kodak 6 micron chips (40MP & 50MP) is a bit of a mystery. They are now behind the technology curve. I was hoping for a Photokina announcement which would change this, but all we got was Leaf's 80MP back which is going in the other direction entirely - no high ISO, no long exposure.

Sometimes these things are timing - and they're not always tied to coincide with trade shows. And also, Phase One's recent history shows a close working relationship with Dalsa. Will they work with Kodak sensors again in the future? Perhaps. There are many factors that would impact whether they will, including pricing, technology, time to market, etc, all valid considerations.

I like the idea of high ISO and long exposure. However, Phase One may be working on technology that encompasses this (or other features) that are based on larger sensor sizes than 44mm x 33mm. I do like that if this is the case. Even more so than resolution, medium format needs to retain an imaging area size advantage over 35mm. Indeed, many don't feel that 645 medium format digital really is medium format. Now 60mm x 70mm, that could be another matter. So, perhaps Phase One is not investing the same amount of R&D in 44mm x 33mm sensors as they are in larger sensors.


Steve Hendrix
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 14, 2010, 12:54:41 pm
Hi Steve,

 You're a dealer, so I guess we can dispense with politeness :)
 Phase have taken over Leaf which was a Kodak subsidiary, they scrapped the only decent modern camera around (the Hy6). Yes they are making a profit by recycling their existing designs. No they are not advancing the state of the art. Yes, Hassleblad is screwing them for all they're worth, by revving their camera and back quality incrementally while lowering prices. As for me, I haven't been able to get a decent offer on a decent camera for my P45+, as Phase dealers do not do upgrades for idiots who bought into the Mamiya system, so I'm going to take Hasselbald's competitive upgrade so I can get a camera that will focus.

Edmund

Sometimes these things are timing - and they're not always tied to coincide with trade shows. And also, Phase One's recent history shows a close working relationship with Dalsa. Will they work with Kodak sensors again in the future? Perhaps. There are many factors that would impact whether they will, including pricing, technology, time to market, etc, all valid considerations.

I like the idea of high ISO and long exposure. However, Phase One may be working on technology that encompasses this (or other features) that are based on larger sensor sizes than 44mm x 33mm. I do like that if this is the case. Even more so than resolution, medium format needs to retain an imaging area size advantage over 35mm. Indeed, many don't feel that 645 medium format digital really is medium format. Now 60mm x 70mm, that could be another matter. So, perhaps Phase One is not investing the same amount of R&D in 44mm x 33mm sensors as they are in larger sensors.


Steve Hendrix
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 14, 2010, 01:37:42 pm
Steve is known as one of the nice guys around here, and universally appreciated by members of this forum, so maybe you missed that smiley on the first line :)

If I stay in MF, I really think I'll move to brand H, and I have a feeling I'm not the only one. I may miss C1 software, but I will never miss the Mamiya body.


Edmund

Edmund,

One thing to keep in mind is that what Phase does is not necessarily related to the dealer. Steve is by far one of the few who will talk honestly about the equipment and agree for the most part with all of our frustrations. That's rare and appreciated.

Good heaven's, you still have that P45+. I think we all had to hear about your debacles for quite a few years. I would think you would have unloaded it by now. A friend had one with good success but sold his a year ago and got reasonable sale price, nothing great to what they were. If you are going to hold onto gear for a good while, use it, get it paid, and expect the financial rear ender later on to unload it. Tech is tech and few want old tech, everybody wants new tech.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on October 14, 2010, 02:50:15 pm
Hi Steve,

 You're a dealer, so I guess we can dispense with politeness :)
 Phase have taken over Leaf which was a Kodak subsidiary, they scrapped the only decent modern camera around (the Hy6). Yes they are making a profit by recycling their existing designs. No they are not advancing the state of the art. Yes, Hassleblad is screwing them for all they're worth, by revving their camera and back quality incrementally while lowering prices. As for me, I haven't been able to get a decent offer on a decent camera for my P45+, as Phase dealers do not do upgrades for idiots who bought into the Mamiya system, so I'm going to take Hasselbald's competitive upgrade so I can get a camera that will focus.

Edmund



Edward, you're an end user, so I'll be polite.  :D

But my opinion is different. First, I think there were far more culpable parties than Phase One when it came to scrapping the Hy6.

It is important that Phase One make profits on recycling improving existing designs. These funds are necessary while they advance the state of the art with products that are still in development.  I can tell you that our customers appreciate the improvements in their Mamiya/Phase One camera systems, which so far include dramatic improvement in auto focus speed, innovative vertical grip with built-in wireless, and new Leaf Shutter and tilt shift lenses from Schneider, one of the most respected optical companies in the world.

I don't know what the situation is where you're at, but I make fantastic offers every day to P45+ users who wish to upgrade. It doesn't matter what camera platform they're on. Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by Phase One dealers not doing upgrades for P1/Mamiya owners?

Politely,
Steve Hendrix
Title: H4D40 at hi iso
Post by: eronald on October 16, 2010, 09:13:29 pm
Steve,

 I talked to the original dealer who I bought the back from today.

 His best quote on a competitive upgrade to H4D60 and the Phase One deal to P65+ are basically identical.

 Phase do not seem to be offering a reasonable upgrade path for just the camera body and lens alone.

  To get a feel for my other -read CHEAPER- options, I took an H4D40/100mm/2.2 for a test spin @1600 and @400 ISO outdoors. Accidentally I happened to have my daily beater, a Nikon D3x/85mm/1.4 with me. Light was failing, and I did some low light portraits of a lady who gave me 5 minutes of her time.

  Re. handling, the good surprise is that I found the H4D focuses beautifully -much much better than my AFDII,  and the finder is very, very good with the 2.2 lens. The  bad surprise was that shutter lag was huge, around 0.7 seconds at least.

 The upshot of the test is that the files from the back are very good@400, but a bit problematic @1600 with a possible hint of IR sensitivity; the surprise here is not only that noisewise the H4D is very good but also that the Nikon just about matches the H4D quality all along, with no hints of issues @1600.

The H4D40 did appear to achieve just a little some of that MF magic 3D effect; the Nikon in fact showed good skin tone under difficult circumstances, and no hint of file non-uniformities or streaking @1600.

 I hadn't really internalized until now how superb the Nikon files really are, when it's people, scenes, and not brick walls. I can understand why Bernard fights so hard on this forum.

 Seeing how ridiculous Phase's policies are I think selling my back is a better idea than paying substantially more than $8K for a new body and Schneider lens *just to get good focus and sharpness with my existing back*.  I might be tempted to crossgrade to Hassy, but from today's experiment I'm not so sure it's really worth it, as I find that in practice I usually shoot at ISO 400.

Maybe the smart thing to do is to sell the back now, and use the money in a year or two for a used Hassy system (that can focus) or a new Nikon :)

You might take this post as an act of encouragement for Phase to provide a reasonably priced body/lens only upgrade path for existing owners. Financial shackles can be painful if they are too tight.

Edmund


Edward, you're an end user, so I'll be polite.  :D

I don't know what the situation is where you're at, but I make fantastic offers every day to P45+ users who wish to upgrade. It doesn't matter what camera platform they're on. Maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by Phase One dealers not doing upgrades for P1/Mamiya owners?

Politely,
Steve Hendrix
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 17, 2010, 10:41:24 am
UPDATE: After burning the 4am oil, and deciding that outside the studio the D3x is very, very good compared to a back (equivalent DR, better ISO, superb focus, decent resolution) - in fact I said that 1600 ISO was very usable and there with the 400 ISO of the H4D40, and the DR still good on those images, and  I thought "how can this be possible"?

And so I did what I used to do before I got Alzheimer, I cross-checked with other experiments. Namely the Dx0 camera comparator, which shows just about the same situation.

The nice thing about the H4D, IMHO is the fact that the AF and the chimp screen both work well, so you will actually reliably get the quality of sensor and lens you are paying for. My unfortunate opinion of the Mamiya P45+ combo I own is that the vagaries of the AF and the mount tolerances void the advantages you get by moving to the larger sensor.

This is not to disparage the H4D40 in any way, but as a field unit the D3x is really better than I thought. Also, the Nikon plausibly has the best AF on the market in a hi-rez camera, which is the other thing which makes it such a formidable competitor - sharpness is really determined by focus. We too often forget the need for sharp focus when we read the megapixel sensor hype, and look at fashion imagery shot with truckloads of artificial lightning, crosschecked for focus by an assistant on a big display.

I'm enclosing a link to the DxO site and the DR comparator image for D3x, HD350 and P65+; note the elbow in DR at ISO 400 when the P back moves to pixel binning. The Dx0 site has a gadget, where you move your mouse up and down over the color strip and it shows you how your image gets degraded by the DR. It also gives you measured ISO values as you hover the mouse.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/585|0/(appareil2)/485|0/(appareil3)/579|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Hasselblad/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/585|0/(appareil2)/485|0/(appareil3)/579|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Hasselblad/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Phase%20One)

Please note that for once, this is a case of pixel-peeping backing up a real-world test. Not that I should be ashamed of using metrics, after all I did train as a scientist rather than as a photographer  :)

Edmund

PS. I do wonder why most people in this forum never noticed the abilities of the Nikon. I adopted the Nikon because I needed fast accurate focus - it is possible that many here preferred the 5D2 for reasons of price alone, assuming it was identical in abilities, and that therefore they underestimate the state of the art in 35mm.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: adammork on October 17, 2010, 11:41:45 am
UPDATE: After burning the 4am oil, and deciding that outside the studio the D3x is very, very good compared to a back

PS. I do wonder why most people in this forum never noticed the abilities of the Nikon. I adopted the Nikon because I needed fast accurate focus - it is possible that many here preferred the 5D2 for reasons of price alone, assuming it was identical in abilities, and that therefore they underestimate the state of the art in 35mm.


I have mentioned a few times here, that my assistant kept telling me, that she could push the D3x files more around than the files from my back - I think she is right, the D3x have some truly fantastic files - and I don't care if Nikon is doing some pre-processing with the raw-files, they look good!

My main system for a lot of reasons is still Alpa with a Leaf back.

The dslr I'm using now is, a bit ironic, a 5D2 for mainly two reasons: the new 17mm and 24mm ts - but - do I miss the file quality from the D3x.....  :-[

/adam
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: pcunite on October 17, 2010, 01:53:32 pm
UPDATE: After burning the 4am oil, and deciding that outside the studio the D3x is very, very good compared to a back (equivalent DR, better ISO, superb focus, decent resolution) - in fact I said that 1600 ISO was very usable and there with the 400 ISO of the H4D40, and the DR still good on those images, and  I thought "how can this be possible"?

PS. I do wonder why most people in this forum never noticed the abilities of the Nikon. I adopted the Nikon because I needed fast accurate focus - it is possible that many here preferred the 5D2 for reasons of price alone, assuming it was identical in abilities, and that therefore they underestimate the state of the art in 35mm.


I only hear good things about the Nikon D3x, this is encouraging for the format. I am holding out for the 1Ds Mark IV, as I intended to make that camera last for a good long while. Hopefully it will be as good as the Nikon. I think that 35mm needs really good electronics that read the sensor, that is what it takes to make them work well. Not enough money was spent (perhaps) on the 5DII to get clean readouts. I don't know... anyway thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: H4D40 at hi iso
Post by: Nick-T on October 17, 2010, 03:59:16 pm
The  bad surprise was that shutter lag was huge, around 0.7 seconds at least.


Edmund there is basically NO shutter lag on the H system UNLESS it have been manually set (to reduce vibration from the mirror on slow exposures for example). I would say that it was very likely someone had set a mirror delay on the camera you tested.
Nick-T
Title: Re: H4D40 at hi iso
Post by: eronald on October 17, 2010, 04:06:03 pm
Edmund there is basically NO shutter lag on the H system UNLESS it have been manually set (to reduce vibration from the mirror on slow exposures for example). I would say that it was very likely someone had set a mirror delay on the camera you tested.
Nick-T

I agree fully that no one else had ever reported a shutter lag issue on the H;  this camera showed a lag *before shutter release activated* in other words *before* the mirror went up. I can only report this, maybe you have an idea what caused it. Wouldn't the mirror delay lift the mirror immediately and then delay before exposure?

Edmund
Title: Test shot crops.
Post by: eronald on October 19, 2010, 07:00:01 pm
Here is my screenshot comparing the H4D40 and the D3x; this is a real world image in bad light, both cameras @ ISO 1600.

The Hassy can do 1600, but it looks like the Raw conversion is going noisy in the face shadows for the guy, and totally losing detail in the dark areas in the front of the guy's hair.

The Nikon on the other hand seems to be holding 1600 with its usual excessive smoothness, so I ADDED SOME NOISE TO THE NIKON SHOT, as I would usually to get some "filmlike" texture.

Both cameras are handheld in bad light with mild tele lenses (85 and 100), and its not the world's best shot, but it demonstrates that both cameras can focus, both can do decent realistic work at realistic real-world ISO, and they are both playing in the same league when taken off a tripod and out of the good light. I did some more shots with the Hassy, basically @ISO 400 it is more or less comparable to the Nikon @1600, but not really better. The Nikon seems to have amazing DR.

Edmund
Title: Re: Test shot crops.
Post by: jduncan on October 19, 2010, 07:06:39 pm
Here is my screenshot comparing the H4D40 and the D3x; this is a real world image in bad light, both cameras @ ISO 1600.

The Hassy can do 1600, but it looks like the Raw conversion is going noisy in the face shadows for the guy, and totally losing detail in the dark areas in the front of the guy's hair.

The Nikon on the other hand seems to be holding 1600 with its usual excessive smoothness, so I ADDED SOME NOISE TO THE NIKON SHOT, as I would usually to get some "filmlike" texture.

Both cameras are handheld in bad light with mild tele lenses (85 and 100), and its not the world's best shot, but it demonstrates that both cameras can focus, both can do decent realistic work at realistic real-world ISO, and they are both playing in the same league when taken off a tripod and out of the good light. I did some more shots with the Hassy, basically @ISO 400 it is more or less comparable to the Nikon @1600, but not really better. The Nikon seems to have amazing DR.

Edmund
Hello. can't find the link ... (fixed thanks)
Title: Re: Test shot crops.
Post by: eronald on October 19, 2010, 07:09:50 pm
Hello. can't find the link ...


Reposting attachment here.

Can you guys see the attachment? I am viewing an empty image on my browser. Will make a yousendit.com link.

Edmund
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 19, 2010, 07:14:15 pm
There's a problem on the forum with my attachments.

HERE IS AN EXTERNAL LINK.
https://www.yousendit.com/download/ZGJjK3BNR3NBNkd4dnc9PQ

Someone else is welcome to host/post if they manage.

Edmund
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: BobDavid on October 19, 2010, 08:57:16 pm
Not surprised with Edmund's tests. I've been using a Sony a850, at ISOs lower than 400, and find that it has a mighty fine sensor, especially when it is wedded to the CZ 24-70. In fact, I use it more than I do the Blad (CF 39MS on a H2f body) these days, especially for field work. The a850 uses the same sensor as the Nikon D3x, however, the Nikon has a 2-stop advantage over the Sony. Those Nikon guys are pulling off some fancy footwork with their processing engine. Of course, for fine art repro, nothing beats a multi-shot medium format back. The same goes for fussy studio still-life projects.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Professional on October 19, 2010, 08:59:25 pm
OK, i managed to download the file image from this link, thanks.

I did similar tests in the past, H3DII-39 against 1Ds3 and again H4D-60 against 1DsIII, i found that 1Ds3 won in high ISO for details only, but the color tones and rendering it is always winner with MF, i did shoot a painting on the wall using ISO800 as this is maximum with my H4D-60 and did the same with 1Ds3, the 1Ds3 retained the details very fine against the Hasselblad and even you may prefer it over Hasselblad, but the color tone and DR was better with Hasselblad, more natural colors with Hasselblad.

I remember i did tests in the past with 1Ds2 against 5D classic, as all said that 5D high ISO shot was cleaner but what i found out is that 1Ds2 shots has more details at highest iso always over 5D.

So when i compare two cameras, what the most factor i have to worry about, the noise? the color? the details? the DR?....etc??????
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: jduncan on October 19, 2010, 09:16:14 pm
There's a problem on the forum with my attachments.

HERE IS AN EXTERNAL LINK.
https://www.yousendit.com/download/ZGJjK3BNR3NBNkd4dnc9PQ

Someone else is welcome to host/post if they manage.

Edmund
The true to be told I found the Hasselblad surprisingly good for a Medium format camera.  This is a CCD against an cmos sensor. When cmos become universal  there were a shock about the impossible good low light performance. Not to differ with you in the bottom line. But I din't  expected the H4D-40 to be competitive at ISO 400 @ low light. Is important to realize also the the resolution advantage  of the 40 is minimal (on mpixels only)  7304 x 5478 pixels vs 6048 x 4032 pixels. 
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: jduncan on October 19, 2010, 09:21:39 pm
OK, i managed to download the file image from this link, thanks.

I did similar tests in the past, H3DII-39 against 1Ds3 and again H4D-60 against 1DsIII, i found that 1Ds3 won in high ISO for details only, but the color tones and rendering it is always winner with MF, i did shoot a painting on the wall using ISO800 as this is maximum with my H4D-60 and did the same with 1Ds3, the 1Ds3 retained the details very fine against the Hasselblad and even you may prefer it over Hasselblad, but the color tone and DR was better with Hasselblad, more natural colors with Hasselblad.

I remember i did tests in the past with 1Ds2 against 5D classic, as all said that 5D high ISO shot was cleaner but what i found out is that 1Ds2 shots has more details at highest iso always over 5D.

So when i compare two cameras, what the most factor i have to worry about, the noise? the color? the details? the DR?....etc??????
Nice to see you by this internet virtual words. How is you baby doing?  (the H4D-60).  This is off topic but maybe some of this days when you have a time you could share some of  your general impression and experience with the tool in a different thread ?

Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: ondebanks on October 20, 2010, 06:47:03 am
The true to be told I found the Hasselblad surprisingly good for a Medium format camera.  This is a CCD against an cmos sensor. When cmos become universal  there were a shock about the impossible good low light performance. Not to differ with you in the bottom line. But I din't  expected the H4D-40 to be competitive at ISO 400 @ low light.

This is down to the Kodak KAF-40000 sensor used in the H4D-40, and the Pentax 645D. It gains one stop over most MF backs by virtue of its microlenses. And about another stop by virtue of its lower readnoise (which is still way worse than a good CMOS sensor though). So ISO 1600 on the H4D-40 & Pentax is like ISO400 on a 'typical' MFD back, and ISO 400 is approaching 'typical' ISO 100.

Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 20, 2010, 06:57:42 am
This is down to the Kodak KAF-40000 sensor used in the H4D-40, and the Pentax 645D. It gains one stop over most MF backs by virtue of its microlenses. And about another stop by virtue of its lower readnoise (which is still way worse than a good CMOS sensor though). So ISO 1600 on the H4D-40 & Pentax is like ISO400 on a 'typical' MFD back, and ISO 400 is approaching 'typical' ISO 100.



How does this compare with the KAF-37500 in the Leica S2?

Edmund
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: fredjeang on October 20, 2010, 07:03:40 am
I would choose without hesitation the left image of Edmund's post.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 20, 2010, 07:53:43 am
I would choose without hesitation the left image of Edmund's post.

The left, needless to say, is the Nikon - with noise added on purpose :)

Edmund
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: ondebanks on October 20, 2010, 10:03:01 am

How does this compare with the KAF-37500 in the Leica S2?

Edmund


I wish I could tell you!

Strangely, Kodak has not released a data-sheet for the KAF-37500 - at least, it's not on their website with all the others; and Google returns nothing but Leica & Kodak PR references.

Ray

Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: eronald on October 20, 2010, 10:13:35 am
It seems to be microlensed.

I know the Bayer filters have changed from earlier generation, especially the red one, which may help with the skin tone.

I assume H is filtering out UV with a cover glass, L have a UV filter built into each S lens.

Edmund

PS. I don't quite buy 2 stops. Maybe they have 1.5 over previous generations. Some speed has been lost via added pixel density.

I wish I could tell you!

Strangely, Kodak has not released a data-sheet for the KAF-37500 - at least, it's not on their website with all the others; and Google returns nothing but Leica & Kodak PR references.

Ray


Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: georgl on November 18, 2010, 03:54:48 am
The S2 uses the very same sensor technology & architecture as the H4D40 and the Pentax 645D - there shouldn't be much difference in noise and dynamic range. Or something was done seriously wrong with the processing chain.

Claims such as "1 stop more sensitivity" with every generation are a little hasty, IMHO. Otherwise we would have ended up with noise-free ISO 3200 a long time ago...
ISO 800/640 looks acceptable with H4D40/S2/645D, while one stop beyond that hasn't much to with MF-quality anyway...
But I also don't buy claims of noise-free 20+MP-CMOS-cameras at this point.
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Jay101 on November 18, 2010, 04:25:22 am
Thanks to all the contributions - going down a similar path to the original post so this is most useful
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: ondebanks on November 18, 2010, 06:45:22 am

Claims such as "1 stop more sensitivity" with every generation are a little hasty, IMHO.

Hang on - "with every generation" - who claimed that? No-one in this thread, anyway.

Progress in MFD sensitivity has been painfully slow. You can study the sensor datasheets down the years, or generations if you prefer. Microlenses give an instant boost of about 1 stop. That's as good as it gets really. Readout noise has only halved, gradually, in the past decade (and that's only for the best cases: several backs being made now are still close to the noise of the backs a decade ago). CMOS readout noise has come down far more rapidly.

But I also don't buy claims of noise-free 20+MP-CMOS-cameras at this point.

Depends on your threshold for "noise-free", but if you are happy with readout noise of around 2-4 electrons, Canon are already there at mid ISOs and Nikon's D3x is there even at somewhat lower ISOs.
The great thing is that we don't need to rely on claims - this has been empirically measured, and anyone with such a camera can repeat and verify the measurements for themselves.

I suspect that at this stage, with readout noise almost beaten, FPN and PRNU mark the last remaining frontier where high end CMOS DSLRs can make further genuine noise reductions in everyday photography. Calibrating out PRNU wouldn't push the ISO range any further - the impact would be more visible in finessing the already excellent smoothness of high-signal regions of the image. It might be argued that there is no perceptible need for this, but having reached the point of greatly diminishing returns on other sensor issues, the DSLR manufacturers will always want a new technical improvement to tout over their rivals.

Ray
Title: Re: Phase One P40/45 vs Hasselblad H4d-40....What to Do?
Post by: Jozef Zajaz on November 29, 2010, 04:41:33 am
The Phase one has the new grip coming out or already out. I tested it this weekend for 3 days straight. Feels very good. It also has the profot air system built in.